# Spin Polarization and the Barnett Effect

• 597 Views
• Last Post 25 December 2018
Prometheus posted this 08 October 2018

Imagine you have a heavy flywheel composed of lead or bismuth, wrapped in fiberglass or Kevlar so the flywheel won't fly apart under the apparent centrifugal force when being spun at high RPM.

Now imagine you have an identical flywheel right next to (within 1/100th inch of) the first, aligned so both have the same axis of rotation. The two flywheels are not touching or connected in any way.

Now imagine you attach a motor capable of high RPM to the first flywheel, place a vacuum bell over the whole thing and evacuate the bell to a high vacuum.

Now you spin up the motor to ~25,000 RPM. Mysteriously, the second flywheel begins rotating (although at a lower RPM), too!

"Weird,", you may think, "there must still be some air in the vacuum bell and it's dragging between the two flywheels."

But the second flywheel is rotating in the opposite direction of the first flywheel, so it can't be air drag causing the rotation.

Why does this happen?

It's a weird quantum effect called the Barnett Effect, where an uncharged body (in this case, the first flywheel) undergoing angular acceleration experiences spin polarization of its electrons, thereby generating a magnetic field.

"But why does the second flywheel rotate opposite to the first?", you ask.

Well, that's another weird quantum effect known as the Einstein-deHaas Effect (conservation of angular magnetic momentum). The Barnett Effect and the Einstein-deHaas Effect are two sides of the same coin.

How can we exploit this phenomenon?

Well, if the two flywheels were mechanically connected such that they could still rotate in opposite directions, but the second flywheel was geared to spin faster than the first, it would create an imbalance between the two spin-polarized fields.

This imbalance results in a spin differential between the two flywheels any time they're rotating, which should result in a vector force attempting to push the flywheels to spin faster in attempting to conserve angular magnetic momentum. If the vector force is sufficient to overcome system friction, the flywheels should accelerate, and the faster they spin, the faster they try to spin.

We've essentially created a mechanical analog of a permanent magnet. The same effect occurs in a permanent magnet by dint of electron spin, which is why domain flipping occurs (as explicated in the thread, 'Understanding And Exploiting Physical Phenomena') via the exchange interaction to minimize the internal energy of the magnet.

This has implications for permanent magnets... it implies that one pole (one predominant magnetic moment direction) must be stronger than the other (as Howard Johnson wrote about in his book 'The Secret World of Magnets', to wit: "The north element (vortex) is dominant, and has proven to be the stronger vortex with higher gauss ratings."), since the vector potential A field is induced by the external magnetizing field, causing a rotoreflected B field with one predominant magnetic moment direction, then domain-flipping occurs (a reflection of the rotoreflection) after the external field is removed, creating a second predominant magnetic moment direction to minimize the magnet's internal energy:

So we have a vector (the induced vector potential A field (Ainduced)), a pseudovector (the rotoreflected B field... Brotoreflected=curl(Ainduced)), a pseudovector of that pseudovector, the reflected B field (Breflected ≅ Brotoreflected, which isn't a vector because it's a similarity transform (a flipping of domains) rather than a rotoreflection) and a vector (the rotoreflected vector potential A field... Arotoreflected=curl(Breflected)).

Which pole is dominant depends upon the conditions during magnetization. For modern magnets, it'll likely be a very small difference (since the crystallographic lattice of permanent magnets are easy-axes aligned prior to sintering, thus there are only two directions in which magnetic moment can be aligned and result in the lowest internal energy; and there's nothing stopping half the domains flipping due to the exchange interaction because the cubic crystallographic lattice of the magnetic material isn't unidirectionally magnetostricted, it's bidirectionally magnetostricted).

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Chris posted this 08 October 2018

Hi Prometheus,

Hmm, Eddy Currents, essentially Lenz's Law.

Although we see the use of a Permanent Magnet in this Eddy Current Brake, its similar to you're post. Magnetic Fields as we know are the result of Charge in Motion. Electrostatics, using Cat Fur on a Glass Rod separates Charge, as the Capacitive Coupling between the Plates or Flywheels increased in Angular Momentum, Charge builds up more and more. Thus the Magnetic Fields increase but, as you state in reverse. Lenz's Law.

Wow, what a post. Get the grey matter going!

Chris

Aetherholic posted this 09 October 2018

There is no mystery in the difference in magnetic poles. It is caused by phase lag  and lead at the lamor frequency and is the ratio of 1 : phi. Look at a ferrocell image to see it. If you dont have a ferrocell make one, its easy. I use this fact in one of my patents. The lag and lead is a reaction to the local aether dominant spin direction also. Compression at the north, expansion at the south. This effect is transferable to biological systems and affects growth and dna, I have done the experiments and yes I am a test subject. Geometry due to resonance is also present in the fields, hexagonal in the south, pentagonal in the north.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

• Liked by
Prometheus posted this 09 October 2018

You appear to be confusing Larmor radiation (the requirements of which are a charged particle undergoing linear or angular acceleration) with the Larmor frequency (precessional frequency of a charged particle (electron or proton or nucleus) in an external magnetic field).

The Larmor frequency only relates to the precessional frequency of a charged particle when influenced by an external magnetic field, which causes a precession of the virtual photon flux pseudovector. I think the term you're looking for is g-factor (a dimensionless quantity which characterizes the magnetic moment and gyromagnetic ratio of a charged particle).

Precession of the bound electrons doesn't cause a magnetic field, and in fact would cause a less-coherent field. The magnetic field is a manifestation of the electron's spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum. Precession of electrons in a crystallographic lattice is actually damped by the magnetostrictive properties of the magnetic material.

The difference between the magnetic poles of a permanent magnet is the helicity of the virtual photons emitted.

Photons (and likewise, virtual photons) are the force-carrying bosons of the Standard Model. Photons are quanta of energy, and energy is in the form of sinusoids (2D) / spirals (3D). Their helicity comes about from the (always left-handed) chirality of the charged particle emitting them... thus the helicity of the virtual photons changes for spin-up and spin-down electrons (which corroborates my 'Understanding and Exploiting Physical Phenomena' thread... without both spin-up and spin-down electrons, there would only be one helicity of virtual photons emitted by a magnet, and thus magnets simply would not work the way they do).

Virtual photons of opposite helicity undergo destructive interference, thereby locally lowering quantum vacuum expectation value below ambient and causing attraction. Virtual photons of same helicity undergo constructive interference, thereby locally raising quantum vacuum expectation value above ambient and causing repulsion.

The compression and expansion of space-time takes place on both pole faces, as evidenced in my 'Understanding And Exploiting Physical Phenomena' thread...

The Inflowing interface at the center of each pole face of a magnet (where virtual photons enter the magnet) slows time down and expands space by reducing quantum vacuum field radiation pressure.

The Outflowing interface around the perimeter of each pole face of a magnet (where virtual photons leave the magnet) speeds time up and contracts space by increasing quantum vacuum field radiation pressure.

If compression only took place on one pole face and expansion on the other, the magnetic material would be unidirectionally anisotropic... and there simply doesn't exist any such material to date except under laboratory conditions. All modern magnetic material has a cubic crystalline lattice with a bidirectional crystallographic anisotropy (except for ultra-thin (two-dimensional) transition metals used in magnetic vortex laboratory research).

The geometry you describe is likely due to shape anisotropies inherent to either the shape of the magnets you have, or to the magnetizing field used. Howard Johnson found two spatially-separated vortexes on each pole face of a cubic magnet, a macroscopic shape anisotropy.

• Liked by
Prometheus posted this 09 October 2018

But imagine how wonderful and weird a magnet would be if it were made of a unidirectionally anisotropic material! The inflowing interface on one pole face would always lower quantum vacuum expectation value, and the outflowing interface on the other pole face would always raise quantum vacuum expectation value.

Right now, the magnets we have exhibit both effects on both pole faces, and they tend to cancel out (although they don't completely cancel, as can be evidenced by placing an iron ball on either pole face... it'll tend to roll toward the perimeter because iron, being ferromagnetic, seeks the highest field radiation pressure).

But if a 'perfect' magnet were made, the inflowing interface would stick to anything (except ferromagnetic material, which seeks higher field radiation pressure, so it would be repelled due to the higher ambient quantum vacuum expectation value)! The outflowing interface could be placed near a stationary wire and current would flow! There would be a gravitoelectromagnetic effect which would always tend to manifest a vector force upon the magnet, and the magnet would always try to move in the direction of its inflowing interface!

That's why I've been working so hard on figuring out how to separate virtual photon flux by their helicity.

• Liked by
Aetherholic posted this 09 October 2018

I am not confusing anything, precession is present in a magnetic field at the same constant as the lamor frequency. Why do you think a charged particle has induced spin when moving through a magnetic field? The magneto-gyroscopic precession is in the field.

If it wasnt then you wouldnt have a phase difference and hence compression and rerefaction between north and south poles.

You can explain it with virtual photons and QM if you like, whatever the theory you choose to use to explain doesnt alter the fact that it is there and observable.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

• Liked by
Prometheus posted this 09 October 2018

Why do you think a charged particle has induced spin when moving through a magnetic field?

You mean through an external magnetic field? As in nuclear magnetic resonance imaging?

You're still conflating two different terms and concepts. The Larmor frequency is the frequency of a charged particle's precession under the influence of an external magnetic field. In referring to permanent magnets, one should be referring to the spin angular momentum and the orbital angular momentum, which is what generates the magnetic field (virtual photons or what we call Larmor radiation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_formula

The Larmor formula is used to calculate the total power radiated by a non relativistic point charge as it accelerates or decelerates. This is used in the branch of physics known as electrodynamics and is not to be confused with the Larmor precession from classical nuclear magnetic resonance.

You'll note the bolded caution in the text blurb above against confusing Larmor precession and Larmor radiation.

Again, the electron only precesses under an external EM influence; that precession is damped in the crystallographic lattice of magnetic material (which is kind of how magnetostriction works, after all); and any precession detracts from the field coherence, it does not add to it. Precession certainly does not generate a permanent magnet's magnetic field.

The magneto-gyroscopic precession is in the field.

No, the gyromagnetic ratio (the ratio of a charged particle's magnetic moment to its total angular momentum (a combination of the particle's spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum) is 'in the field'.

If one is going to use physics terms, one should use the correct definitions of those terms.

If it wasnt then you wouldnt have a phase difference and hence compression and rerefaction between north and south poles.

The 'phase difference' isn't manifested until there is relative motion in the inertial frame of the magnet, and that 'phase difference' is between the magnetic vector potential Ainduced and Arotoreflected fields.

So we have a vector (the induced vector potential A field (Ainduced)), a pseudovector (the rotoreflected B field... Brotoreflected=curl(Ainduced)), a pseudovector of that pseudovector, the reflected B field (Breflected ≅ Brotoreflected, which isn't a vector because it's a similarity transform (a flipping of domains) rather than a rotoreflection) and a vector (the rotoreflected vector potential A field... Arotoreflected=curl(Breflected)).

The above is what generates the space-time effects of a permanent magnet upon the quantum vacuum.

Precession ≠ orbital rotation nor spin.

• Liked by
Aetherholic posted this 09 October 2018

So now you agree that there is a phase difference between the poles and that the poles are different. In the case of light blue shift at the north and red shift at the south.

I am interested to know how QM can explain this without precession causing relative phase shift between the poles. If both poles are equal then there should be no phase shift.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

• Liked by
Prometheus posted this 10 October 2018

So now you agree that there is a phase difference between the poles and that the poles are different.

You're not only conflating concepts and redefining common long-known terms, now you're putting words in my mouth. Don't do that.

In the case of light blue shift at the north and red shift at the south.

Light does not and cannot  undergo a Doppler shift in a uniform magnetic field, a magnetic field can only change the polarization of that light in an optically-transparent dielectric material (Faraday Effect). Your take on magnets would imply that there is a net energy transfer from one pole face of a magnet, meaning that magnet could be placed against a stationary wire and current would flow. It would also imply a relativistic effect which would concretize virtual photons (a moving frame will experience as concretized that which a non-moving frame experiences as virtual), so a permanent magnet would be a flashlight. That doesn't happen.

Again, there is no 'phase difference' at the pole faces, the 'phase difference' is a relativistic effect of relative motion in the inertial frame of the magnet, and it occurs within the two magnetic vector potential A fields (Ainduced and Arotoreflected). It's more commonly known as the Aharonov-Bohm Effect.

Your conceptual errors can be ameliorated by perusing my 'Understanding And Exploiting Physical Phenomena' thread.

But before you do so, please provide your definition of 'precession'... Wheeler defined it as rotation, and I suspect your errors stem from adopting his fundamental error.

Pro-tip: Precession ≠ orbital rotation nor spin.

Aetherholic posted this 10 October 2018

Please then explain the observed blue and red shift at the poles on ALL permanent magnets regardless of shape. I am interested to know QM's interpretation. According to reletavistic interpretation this would mean a velocity difference. If both poles are equal and there is no motion of the magnet then the Aharonov-Bohm Effect should be equal at both poles and if there is a spectral shift it should be equal also. This disagrees with observation so somehow the discrepancy needs an explanation. So far I cant explain it with either relativity or QM unless there is a difference of some sort between the poles. This is what needs to be explained not the method of explanation. So, as you are a proponent of QM and relativity, I wanted to know your opinion on the observed phenomena and if it can be adequately described.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

Prometheus posted this 10 October 2018

Please then explain the observed blue and red shift at the poles on ALL permanent magnets regardless of shape.

Please provide at least one non-Wheeleric example of same. Or weren't you aware that Wheeler, in his video, was merely showing the effects of preferential scattering/reflection of certain wavelengths of light in the ferrocell fluid (and glass) as the magnet was moved beneath the ferrocell... in other words, a combination of the Faraday Effect and the Cotton-Mouton Effect?

Photon wavelength cannot be affected by a static magnetic field directly, it requires the intermediation of invariant mass (as does the Faraday Effect (transparent dielectric material) and the Cotton-Mouton Effect (liquid)) or relativistic mass-energy (as in the instance of a magnetar's ultra-strong magnetic field's gravitoelectromagnetic coupling distorting space-time, thereby causing photons to blue-shift as they descend the induced gravity well, and red-shift as they ascend it).

For a typical consumer magnet, you're not going to see any Doppler shift in the wavelength of light with your bare eyeballs. A typical consumer magnet tops out at 1 or 2 Tesla... a magnetar tops out at ~1,000,000,000,000 Tesla.

If both poles are equal and there is no motion of the magnet then the Aharonov-Bohm Effect should be equal at both poles and if there is a spectral shift it should be equal also.

You have a conceptual misunderstanding of what the Aharonov-Bohm Effect entails. It is merely the phase shift between Ainduced and Arotoreflected as a charged particle passes the (usually mutually-cancelling) magnetic vector potential A fields, a relativistic effect.

I suggest you ditch all that you've 'learned' from Wheeler, it's leading you astray. Peruse my 'Understanding And Exploiting Physical Phenomena' thread for a primer, then move on to QM texts.

Should you persist in clinging to the Wheeleric Universe theory, I'm afraid I can't help you. I can point you in the right direction, but I can't learn this stuff for you.

Aetherholic posted this 10 October 2018

Ok thank you for your input.

Aetherholic - One truth, One field

• Liked by
Chris posted this 10 October 2018

I guess, whatever Spins Your Wheelers? Sorry bad joke.

In my work, I try to apply my Experimental Evidence with the best theory I can find.

Unfortunately, I can say that some QM does not give any sensible result to some of the simplest things!

I have no time to debate theory with anyone, but my gut and common sense often provides a different road.

Chris

• Liked by
Prometheus posted this 16 October 2018

I've been wanting to get a different website going. It may be possible using MVC, although that dot-com doesn't come up now.

The website is dead, apparently Lee (aka YodasMyDad) moved everything to GitHub:

Although I wish you wouldn't leave. You've got some good ideas, and we can ping our knowledge off each other to advance.

I find I usually learn fastest when I'm challenged, so anyone wanting to do so, please feel free. There's nothing wrong with challenging someone's knowledge, as long as we abide by Chris's rules to do so respectfully. It is friendly competition that leads to advancement.

I tried to apply this on other forums, but when you're dealing with people who believe in flat earth; expanding earth; the sun being made of Uranium; historically-strengthening gravity leading to prehistoric hopping dinosaurs weighing 40 tons; the universe having only one particle; the universe deconstructing everything we don't look at (and instantaneously reconstructing it a split-second prior to our looking at it) implying an intelligent universe and instantaneous action at a distance; etc., etc., etc... well, it gets tiring arguing with that type of person, especially when they're claiming Huygens / Euler / Einstein / Planck / Bohr / Compton / Zeeman / Raman / Maxwell / Heisenberg / de Broglie / Lorenz / Lorentz, etc. were actually frauds and not very intelligent, and their own two-page nonary-math scribbling is actually 'The Answer'.

That's why I'm here. Chris keeps a tight rein on the topics as means of fostering innovation and ultimately productivity.

• Liked by
Chris posted this 17 October 2018

Hey Prometheus,

I completely agree, some arguments are poor at best! I refuse to put up with miss-truths, miss-leading non-sense, and anything remotely related to any sort of Trolling.

Morale is critical, and those set to destroy morale are dangerous! These people always have an agenda and its not to help others!

Prometheus, I enjoy reading your very detailed posts, please continue

Chris

• Liked by
Prometheus posted this 24 October 2018

My wife wants to get our kids (aged 7 and 9) involved in electronics... I'm more mechanically-inclined. I started out in grade-school trying to follow in my father's electrician footsteps (he worked on amateur radio equipment for Rockwell International, did some military electronic equipment repair that the military's own guys couldn't get working, and ran his own electronics repair shop), but after getting zapped a few too many times while working on TV sets (I even had my own test-pattern generator and oscilloscope / vectorscope) that people had left at my father's shop for repair, by the time I graduated high school, I figured I'd best find something a little less hazardous to life and health.

So while I have a few mechanical inventions (and you'll notice that what I've written about have a mechanical bent to them), it looks like I'm going to be getting back into electronics. I'll have to buy a few multimeters, an oscilloscope, a power supply and a signal generator... possibly a spectrum analyzer, if the o-scope doesn't have the functionality.

Any suggestions? I don't really want to spend more than about \$5000 on all the equipment, if possible.

The good news is that now I can start experimenting on some of the motional-EMF stuff discussed here. That'll make a good topic to teach the kids, as well... imagine the science fair exhibits they'll have.

Vidura posted this 24 October 2018

Prometheus, Good to hear that you and your kids will sum to the EM investigations team! Regards to the equipment, I have bought a signal generator which has resulted impractical, so I would recommend you a model where the frequency and duty cycle can be adjusted simultaneously on two different rotary encoders. This is very useful for finding the sweet spot of many setups. Also some analogue multimeter are useful, they are less prone to hf interference. For the skopes other members have more experience with the DSO I only own an old crt skope. Regards Vidura

• Liked by
Chris posted this 24 October 2018

Hey Prometheus,

I like to do a YouTube afternoon of all the reviews on the models I like. Its interesting what one can learn in a review.

Not to say that I have bought any new gear lately...

I think its great that you are taking on such a wonderful adventure with your kids! Awesome! A few of use here do similar things

A cheap Audio Amp can be a handy tool also. Worth adding to your list.When you do buy, feel free to do a Hardware Review and post it to our Hardware section is you wish! That would be great to see!

I agree with Vidura, getting good specs on H/W at a reasonable price is reasonably easy nowadays.

Chris

• Liked by
Zanzal posted this 24 October 2018

My wife wants to get our kids (aged 7 and 9) involved in electronics...

I think your wife has a good suggestion there. Teach your children the basics of all that you can and they can build upon that knowledge in a way that suits their interests. One idea might be to make it fun, like rather than "let's learn circuits" (boring) do it like "let's build robots together and have robot battles" (fun).

Any suggestions? I don't really want to spend more than about \$5000 on all the equipment, if possible.

The good news is that now I can start experimenting on some of the motional-EMF stuff discussed here. That'll make a good topic to teach the kids, as well... imagine the science fair exhibits they'll have.

It really just depends what you want to focus on. I'd recommend a really good signal generator, and a decently fast scope. Forget the spectrum analyzer unless its for signal processing applications. 2-4 high quality multimeters (what you are willing to pay for). But no matter what you choose, there will be limits to what your equipment can do and always a need for new equipment to handle higher voltages, higher frequency ranges, etc.

Its perhaps worth mentioning that Tesla didn't have any of that stuff... So really its all about convenience. None of it guarantees success, but I can tell you that if there is one piece equipment I should probably have but don't and its a really good signal generator. Researching diy signal generators dominates an inordinate amount of my time.

• Liked by
Zanzal posted this 24 October 2018

I tried to apply this on other forums, but when you're dealing with people who believe in flat earth;

I tend to think if someone believes the earth is flat then their basis for that belief is probably not anchored in anything rational. Outside of trolling, those who believe in a flat earth probably do so simply because others claim it is round. A rejection of consensus and conformity rather than an actual belief. Of course there are probably some who might believe it simply because they got duped. Neither have much prospect for being easily convinced of their error, for different reasons. Nice of you to engage them civilly though, I have no such reservoir of patience. My response would likely be "FE GTFO."

Though, admittedly, I do entertain the notion that the earth could be expanding over time due to the accretion of mass from the sun, and that the spooky interaction at a distance could be the result of linkage between the two particles through a higher dimension, I certainly don't know if its true or not. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't hurt to speculate or imagine such things as possible...

• Liked by
Prometheus posted this 25 December 2018

There's not really any spooky action at a distance... there is,  however, spooky correlation at a distance.

Remember, everything (matter and energy) are composed of sinusoids (2D) / spirals (3D). That's why we have Einstein's famous equation E2 = m2 c4 + p2 c2.

Matter and energy are two forms of the same thing, and everything including matter has a resonant frequency... in the case of matter it is this resonant frequency which keeps that matter concretized. Disrupt that resonance and matter becomes less stable. Matter is energy trapped and resonantly 'pinging' off the Higgs field, the energy still traveling at the speed of light but doing so in a standing wave without any net vector, which locks it to our frame of reference and makes it appear as concretized to us.

These sinusoids (2D) / spirals (3D) can become 'entangled' in that they resonantly interact such that one particle has spin-up and the other spin-down.

If one carefully separates the two now-entangled particles without perturbing them, they'll maintain their spin vector.

Thus, if one assumes that the particles haven't undergone any coherence with their surroundings in the intervening time since their separation, one can safely assume that if one sees Particle A with spin-up, then Particle B has spin-down, no matter how far apart they are.

Some then claim that if you change the spin vector of Particle A, then Particle B also instantaneously changes its spin vector, but that's bunkum. In reality if you change the spin vector of either particle, you destroy the entanglement and thus the correlation between the two particles, just as would happen if either particle were allowed to interact with and cohere to their surroundings.

So there's not really any spooky action at a distance... there is,  however, spooky correlation at a distance.

• Liked by
Prometheus posted this 25 December 2018

The Earth does gain matter from in-fall from space and accretion of particles from the sun... but that's far over-ridden by the loss to space of our atmosphere and water.

So we're slowly, over a very long time, becoming more of a rocky planet and less of a watery planet, to the tune of ~50,000 tons per year of weight loss from the planet.

So our baseline gravity from non-volatiles (solid matter) is slowly increasing, while our gravity from volatiles (water, gases) is slowly decreasing. Eventually it'll balance out such that the solid matter has sufficient gravity to prevent the volatiles from escaping to space, but by that time we'll likely be a rocky planet with no water, and by that time the sun will be expanding into a red giant so we're toast either way.

Merry Christmas. Heh.

• Liked by
Members Online:
Since Nov 27 2018
Our Above Unity Machines:

More than anything else, your contributions to this forum are most important! We are trying to actively get all visitors involved, but we do only have a few main contributors, which are very much appreciated! If you would like to see more pages with more detailed experiments and answers, perhaps a contribution of another type maybe possible:

Donate (PayPal)

The content I am sharing is not only unique, but is changing the world as we know it! Please Support Us!

Donate (Patreon)

Thank You So Much!

Start Here:
Weeks High Earners:
The great Nikola Tesla:

Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago go by instinct or reason. It has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who drives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians, and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static, our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.

Experiments With Alternate Currents Of High Potential And High Frequency (February 1892).